I said NO contract… not that it was a contract…
Right, so you were not inferring that there is a contract here on icp for stakers that locked them in for guaranteed apy?
1 Like
Completely disagree. There is indeed a virtually signed agreement = contract (a promise) on both sides.
You don’t need a signature to have a legally binding contract. That’s ridiculous. In fact, a verbal contract is the same thing. In this case, you were asked to enter into a staking contract: Do you agree to locking up your capital INDEFINITELY for this particular reward APY? And once you locked up, there was no going back and you were indeed tied into a contractual agreement for a minimum of X number of years past the day you decided to start “dissolving” exactly like a loan agreement for a CD or anything similar except at an enormous opportunity cost. You could not sell at a profit even if you wanted to or move your capital elsewhere. You could not sell at a loss even if you needed to.
The disrespect here for the long term stakers who made the ultimate sacrifice for this project is truly unbelievable imo. To just disregard their sacrifice of capital, time, and opportunity cost is wrong and will not bode well here for the future of this project if M70 is not modified accordingly to grandfather them in as should have been done prior to ever proposing it.
Do you not remember the last time there was a suggestion of changing terms on current stakers and the backlash for good reason? We have not heard from the majority of stakers yet. Only the few smart alecs who have no respect and those who agree are doing so out of disgust wanting to exit at a huge loss and not because they even care at this point to see any kind of actual return.
1 Like
You’re not really interested but yet you respond. I never said ICP has failed. ICP has succeeded in many ways technologically and development wise way ahead of all other blockchains. In fact it is a monumental achievement in the space and should have won “BlockChain of the Year” in terms of innovation in distributed computing. The fact this even works is truly an amazing feat.
Having said that, it has not yet succeeded business-wise.
The fact that I’m here typing to you shows that I do really care. So far unfortunately, I’ve only met whales who like James Allan, Yol, among others and disgruntled devs who yes will only vote yes to exit stage left unfortunately even at huge losses and even if they have to sell on idgeek and not even wait another 2 years to dissolve. You have now opened up this can of worms with the current M70 not to mention Adam and others.
I have repeatedly stated that I am not against a Mission 70 plan to cut necessary expenses. I just want the current group to be grandfathered in with the option to voluntary choose on an individual basis if they want to accept the new staking terms and periods. I don’t agree with the 2 week option nor the asymmetric maturity modulation. The node provider cuts are necessary unfortunately.
I even agreed with something like Henn’s A.I. modification for a “hybrid-model” instead here:
The current M70 is extremely dangerous as proposed. It will be catastrophic. I DON’T want this project to fail. That’s why I’m here wasting my time it seems.
With out nodes there is no network.
Nodes produce under 40% of inflation when not counting unspawned maturity. They produce under 15% of inflation if you look at all icp created since genesis.
At least understand what is really necessary for this network.
Okay so what is your opinion about the hybrid model that Henn suggested after consulting A.I. that seems fair for all stakeholders including node providers?
You got permissioned node farms, meanwhile you got communities across the cryptosphere NoDiNg It Up.
Without Nodes there is no network… but if you have tokens on the network, surely you’ll run a node for free now, simply out of common sense, to run the network your tokens live on.
Too combative? TF that even mean?
I’m starting to get a really sour taste on here…
Not agreeing with sompeone is one thing but silencing someone without a proper reply on his findings is well… guilty until proven innocent?
2 Likes
Hey we got a long way to go, bear market arguably…. too much doom & gloom, time to start building the DIP:
custard.ai (open-source caffeine.ai clone)
- roadmap:
- $23,880.00 - Domain.name https://www.namecheap.com/domains/registration/results/?domain=custard.ai
- $20 - Pepperoni & Pineapple
from Dominos.
Send ICP here to get the pizza party started: 38bb915ae32f7bb8e841c07022cee0a8247993b39c63af696a829261855726d0
Do try reading that again, slowly this time.
“No contract. No lockup. No guaranteed APY” was describing Ethereum miners - the point being they had none of those things,which is precisely why the ETH comparison doesn’t apply here.
ICP stakers, by contrast, locked funds based on published tokenomics with explicit reward structures. Whether you call it a “contract” or a “whitepaper promise” is semantics. The point stands: one group took open-ended market risk with full exit freedom, the other committed capital for 8 years based on stated terms.
If you’re going to be pedantic, at least be accurate about what you’re being pedantic about.
1 Like
Okay if you want to be this way let’s look at sol. They reduced apy on stakers as well.
What’s up with the spike in cycle burn rate on ICP over the last 48 hours?
What project(s) is causing this spike?
We were at only 7k the other day…then 11, then 14, now 28…uhhhh
Im stress testing the network.
Dan knows why his account was suspended. Issuing ultimatums and threats (now removed from this forum) do not belong to any civilized discussion, including this forum and they won’t be tolerated. So, in short, please follow the forum rules; they are there for a reason.
Let the man speak his mind. FFS Does anyone here honestly feel threatened? By WORDS??
The decentralized web 3 on full display. This is the model for your innovative governance? Absolute farce.
I’m beginning to think we’re the baddies 
Orthogonal persistence! Unstoppable! Transparency! Tamperproof!
1 Like
Anyone can speak their mind without issuing ultimatums and threats. This forum is a place where we don’t want members to feel threatened. Speak your mind while respecting others and obey forum rules - you are very welcome here. If you break the rules, then yes, you are baddie. In short, FAFO.
2 Likes
A post was split to a new topic: Forum rules discussion
So is someone from Dfinity gonna shed some light on his findings then or we just gonna sweep it under the rug…
2 Likes
There is no spoon^B^B rug. Dan claimed Caffeine activity is >60% bot-driven because “many canisters contain unmodified code templates” and demanded DFINITY “to come clean”. You can read more in the motion proposal that he submitted (it is still open as of now). However, the foundation has no visibility into this; one should ask the Caffeine team instead. We have been directing any Caffeine inquiries to their Discord for some time now.
UPD: obviously, if there is a large number of bots - it is a concern since requests cost $. I trust their SRE team to take care of this. And not even going to discuss the accusation that ‘neurons can be stripped of ability to submit proposals’, sorry 
1 Like